G.R. No. 144568 - Spouses Lumanas vs. Sablas

Respondents Esterlita S. Sablas and Rodulfo S. Sablas filed a complaint for judicial partition, inventory, and accounting against petitioners spouses Pascual Lumanas and Guillerma S. Sablas in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baybay, Leyte, Branch 14 on October 1, 1999.
Petitioners were served summons and a copy of the complaint on October 6, 1999.

Petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file their answer, requesting 15 additional days until November 5, 1999.
The answer was ultimately filed on November 8, 1999, which was out of time.
The trial court noted that the answer was late but admitted it because respondents did not file a motion to declare petitioners in default.

On November 9, 1999, respondents filed a motion to declare petitioner spouses in default.
The trial court denied this motion in an order dated December 6, 1999.
Respondents moved for reconsideration, which was also denied on January 11, 2000.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 arguing that the admission of the late answer was contrary to the Rules of Court and constituted grave abuse of discretion.
On July 17, 2000, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. It emphasized that under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, the trial court was mandated to declare petitioners in default when they failed to file the answer on or before November 5, 1999.
The Court of Appeals vacated the December 6, 1999 order and remanded the case for reception of plaintiffs’ evidence.

Petitioners assailed the Court of Appeals decision, arguing misinterpretation of Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and inconsistency with established jurisprudence.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the late answer filed by the petitioners despite the failure to file it within the reglementary period.
Whether a court can declare a defendant in default absent a motion to declare default filed by the claiming party.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing the trial court’s order and requiring declaration of petitioners in default.